About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
clinton's future and her running for president in 2016? that is our question this morning on the "washington journal." you can start dialing in now, or you can contact us via social media. you can make a comment on our facebook page. you can also send us an e-mail. from "the hill" newspaper yesterday -- a new poll by abc news and "the washington post." 57% say they support a presidential bid from every clinton in 2016. -- from hillary clinton in 2016. 68% approved of her work as secretary of state. 66% hold a favorable view of clinton after her department has faced criticism over the handling of benghazi and libya. clinton also has heavy support in new york were 54% of registered voters say they would support a presidential bid by her in 2016. that is an "the hill" newspaper. we have lots of facebook comments already on this question. we want to share a couple of those with thieu. jackie says "she has my vote." williams says i think she has been a great job for secretary of state but will not vote for her for president. andy says hillary 2016. military spouses against the
is to president clinton's point if you want to live like a republican, vote for a democrat, they'll give you better economics. >> brenda: gary b, go ahead. give your best. >> well, you know, julian's very good at raising the straw man. i don't recall everyone saying the market was going to tank if obama was reelected. to sate that oh, it didn't tank, that's kind of silly. the other thing, every time the tax rate has been tried to stick it to the rich. 91% tax rates during fdr years and failed miserably and they've gone back and ended up lowering the rate. it's such a good idea and look for historical examples where it worked. it hasn't worked. if julian wants so much the clinton tax rates, that's fine, i'll go along with that if we had the clinton era government spending which we don't. >> brenda: okay. all right, we've got to go. thanks, guys. so, see this? last year, it was a union uproar in wisconsin and now we're seeing this. a different state, same scene, neil and his gang saying all taxpayers should be paying attention. that's at the bottom of the hour, but up here first, did you hear
in peace negotiations with other countries or president clinton's global initiative, former presidents have a valuable role in using their experience and knowledge to help the u.s. in both a public and private capacity. the world has changed dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the threats to american personnel and interests continue as terrorists raged a war against the united states. arbitrarily limiting the secret service protection to 10 years might have been good after the cold war ended and before the global war on terror begun. in which they're considered targets, we must make sure that the security of our former chief executives are not jeopardized. h.r. 6620 recognizes that those who serve as president are symbols of america and american freedoms and deserve to be protected. there are only a handful of americans who will be called upon to serve this country as president. these individuals represent america not only while serving in office but remain in the public consciousness long after they leave. h.r. 6620 simply recognizes this unique role and reinstates lifetime prot
president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. i remember i was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i moved forward on those votes, including one very controversial circuit court nominee. the senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. we proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the election of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. the reason i'm not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we proceeded to confirm the last ten judicial nominees approved
supporting same sex marriage, president clinton who signed defense of marriage act into law, he supports gay marriage, but the american public attitudes have changed. back in 2005, 35% thought same sex marriage should be recognized. now it is up to 53%. here is the question. do the justices, the nine justices, are they influenced by public opinion? >> you bet. they sure are. this is an issue that wouldn't even have been on the agenda had the public not changed so dramatically. let me just tell you a story from supreme court history. 1986, the first real significant gay rights case that the court ever had, the swing vote at the time was lewis powell. and he was in his chambers, said to his law clerk, you know, i don't think i ever met a homosexual. no justice would say that today. as it turned out, that law clerk himself was a gay man, although he didn't disclose it to the justice at the time. the world has changed so dramatically, the polls have changed. justice ruth ginsberg often talks about the reason she won as a lawyer all the women's rights cases in the 1970s is that the world had chan
looks forward to the event. >> this president clinton have any remarks were suggestions to president obama through their golf game on the fiscal cliff? >> for reasons that would be apparent to anybody who's seen me sitting at golf club i was not there and therefore do not know. [inaudible] >> and a president obama enjoyed the session, but beyond that i don't have anything else for you. [inaudible] >> can you give us more detail about who will be here, how many end the dialog does not already part of the conversation? >> the president looks forward to the meeting. i think we will have details on that later this evening. i don't have a list for you. >> in concept, talk about what experience governors have, what is hoping to hear every day. >> governors have a lot at stake in this process. they've been interesting seeing washington get its fiscal house in order. they see action to ensure that the economy continues to grow. governors broadly speaking having an interest in washington making wise investments and rebuilding our infrastructure. they obviously have a stake in our health care
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)